Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: October 27, 2025 To November 02, 2025

Reports/JudgmentsS.12A Commercial Courts Act | Pre-Litigation Mediation Not Mandatory In Cases Of Continuing IPR Infringement: Supreme CourtCase Details: Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd. & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1027The Supreme Court held that the requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act cannot be mechanically applied in cases involving continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, such as trademark violations. The Court observed that insisting on mediation before filing a suit in such situations would effectively leave the plaintiff without a remedy, allowing the infringer to continue profiting under the cover of procedural formalities. The provision, the Court said, was never intended to produce such an “anomalous result.”The Supreme Court has held that the requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act cannot be mechanically applied in cases involving continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, such as trademark violations. The Court observed that insisting on mediation before filing a suit in such situations would effectively leave the plaintiff without a remedy, allowing the infringer to continue profiting under the cover of procedural formalities. The provision, the Court said, was never intended to produce such an “anomalous result.”Also from the judgment: Supreme Court Explains Tests To Determine Urgency To Exempt Pre-Litigation Mediation In Commercial SuitsDecision On Limitation Made On Demurrer Not Final; Party Autonomy In Arbitration Cannot Override Statute: Supreme CourtCase Details: Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund v. Neelkanth Realty Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1028The Supreme Court has held that when an arbitral tribunal decides a preliminary issue such as limitation on the basis of demurrer, that decision cannot preclude the tribunal from revisiting the issue at a later stage if evidence warrants it.A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan affirmed the Bombay High Court's view that a decision on demurrer is provisional and not an adjudication on merits.The Court dismissed Special Leave Petitions filed by Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund (UIREF), a Mauritius-based private equity fund, which had questioned the Bombay High Court's order permitting the arbitral tribunal to reconsider the issue of limitation in its dispute with Neelkanth Realty Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal had earlier held, on demurrer, that UIREF's claims were within limitation. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court held that such a finding could not bar a later factual examination of limitation, since the question involved mixed issues of fact and law.Supreme Court Quashes 37-Year-Old Dismissal Of Railway TTE, Orders Grant Of Benefits To Legal HeirsCase Details: V.M. Saudagar (Dead) Through Legal Heirs v. Divisional Commercial Manager, Central Railway & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1029The Supreme Court (October 27) set aside the 37-year-old dismissal of a Railway Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE), holding that the disciplinary findings were perverse and unsupported by evidence. The employee, who passed away during the prolonged litigation, will now have all consequential benefits released to his legal heirs.A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench order, allowing the appeal filed by the legal heirs of the deceased employee, restoring the earlier decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had quashed the dismissal order. The Court strongly criticized the Railway authorities' enquiry process and the Bombay High Court's subsequent approval of it.It was alleged that the deceased employee-appellant was on duty on May 31, 1988, aboard the Dadar-Nagpur Express when the vigilance team conducted a surprise check. A Railway vigilance team levelled four charges against him, including demanding illegal gratification from passengers, possessing excess cash, failing to recover a fare difference, and forging a duty pass. Based on an Enquiry Officer's report, he was dismissed from service in 1996.Supreme Court Transfers Eureka Forbes' Patent Infringement Suit Against Atomberg's “Intellon” Water Purifier To Bombay High CourtCase Title – Atomberg Technologies Private Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Limited & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1030The Supreme Court has transferred a patent infringement suit filed by Eureka Forbes Limited before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court, where a related suit by Atomberg Technologies Private Limited for “groundless threat of infringement” is already pending.A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar allowed Atomberg's transfer petition and dismissing Eureka Forbes' counter-transfer petition.“In the interest of saving precious judicial time and to...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: October 27, 2025 To November 02, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags